Gardai Too Soft?

ok I hope this isn't considered back-seat modding - but we're getting severly off-topic.

This thread is supposed to be about the Gardai (and their use or lack of use of force) ....now its turned into a debate about the prison system, the legal system, scumbags, little scumbags, parenting, social welfare scroungers .....

Jaysus this is all AH threads into one !!! ..... quick someone say "yore ma" and we're sorted !!


carry on.....

threeball wrote: »

You're away with the fairies. The majority in prison have no respect for the prison sentence or the law that put them there.

Liam Byrne said:

the law only applies to law-abiding citizens.

The fact that there are people in prison is pretty strong evidence that the law doesn't just apply to law-abiding citizens. If that were the case, then the law breakers wouldn't be in prison, would they? In agreeing with Liam, and then referencing prisoners, you're contradicting yourself in the one breath. His original point is factually incorrect, and in trying to support him, you've shown why. I'm not sure if having a grasp of logic is away with the fairies, but if so, then guilty as charged. Where do i report for my flogging and hard labour?

Theres fellas running around with over 100 convictions after their name. Those guys should never see the light of day again. 3 strikes, ten yrs, you might think twice next time. I'd have them breaking rocks from dawn till dust for the duration of their sentence. Prison is no detterent and the tact the guards take demands no respect.

The thing is, there isn't really any deterrent to those raised in criminality. None that has been proven to be effective anyway. Lengthy sentences, the prospect of the capital penalty, and all the general sexual nastiness that occurs in US prisons hasn't had any impact on recidivism. Nor had the abysmal conditions in 19th century prisons. Indeed, modern Europe and Ireland have lower rates of criminality than either the US, or the 19th century world, so, just looking at things on the evidence, the latter are hardly models to be holding up for emulation.

I think there is a case to be made for longer sentences, but what you're proposing is based only on reflexive gut reaction. It's an emotional response, and I'd rather not base our justice system on gut reactions to an exaggerated state of moral decline.

The airy fairy bullsh*t has gone on long enough and we live in a country thats only suits the scum or the very wealthy. Everyone else just pays the bills.

Talk about exaggeration. We have one of the lowest rates of serious crime in the world, and one of the highest standards of living in the world. Both yourself and Liam are completely over-reacting in your portrayal of Ireland as some sort of dystopian hellhole.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No idea what that's supposed to mean. What's wrong with wanting parents to actually do some PARENTING, instead of letting their sprogs run riot, shrugging their shoulders and saying "what can you do?" before they shuffle on in their PJs puffing on their fags and ignoring the little tyke that's just knocked the shop stock off the shelves or written all over the flyers ?

What's wrong with wanting parents to say "No - you can't go out walking the streets in a hoodie @ 10pm and chucking rocks at passing cars or getting cheap kicks out of deliberately forcing old ladies off the path and onto the roads, while spray-painting expensive public property with your pathetic ;Jimmy woz ere'" ?

What's wrong with saying "You're MY child, and MY responsibility, not the responsibility of Gardai or the state with some scumbag right to wreak havoc" ?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Lay off the pathetic personal crap.

There is NOTHING unreasonable in what I said above. If you think there is, post something worthwhile and we'll discuss it.

Looking up dictionary.com so you can copy and paste snide remarks is adding nothing to the discussion.

Do you not think that parents should actually do PARENTING ?

I've nothing against any of the above. I do however, have major issues with your idea that prospective parents should have to pass state sanctioned tests. That idea would have been controversial in Nazi Germany FFS.

threeball wrote: »

Jail for first time offenders should be fairly rudimentary with just a taste of what it will be like if you come back. Any one who commits 3 offences in 10 years automaticlly gets 10 years. Time should be spent doing labour. Not stuffing your face with creatine and hitting the weights room.

That seems fair enough at first glance, until one thinks about it a bit. How about if one thrice fails to pay one's tv licence? Off to prison for a decade? I had quite a successful relative who, unfortunately, had a form of kleptomania. She didn't rob because she couldn't afford things, but out of compulsion. She was always mortified afterwards, and generally returned the item(s), or returned herself to pay for them. She was quite a frail lady, and everyone understood her condition so charges were never pressed. However, in your brutal reality, had charges been pressed thrice, she'd be spending a decade doing hard labour with hardened criminals. Not only would that have destroyed her, and us, her family, and be grossly unjust, but removing her from society would deprive the tax payer of the revenue she generated as part of her job.

Broad brush solutions like those you advocate appeal to emotion rather than logic. They make people feel like something is being done, when in reality, nothing gets better, and society as a whole suffers. I've no problem with long sentences for people who commit serious crimes, but the idea of 10 years inside for 3 potentially minor offences is obscene, and has nothing to do with justice.

Also dole payments should be limited to draw down for one year
after leaving education. At that stage any future dole available to you will be calculated as a percentage of your working life . Work 5yrs you're entitled to 1yrs dole, work 10yrs get 2 years dole etc. Don't work, you get nothing. Hardlines lines. Only exception would be genuinely medically unable.

Another reflex idea, which on closer scrutiny, falls apart entirely. This recession has been ongoing for at least three years. Unemployment has steadily risen to almost 15%. Many good people have been on the dole for several years, with large numbers of school leavers among them. There are scroungers of course, but most people on the dole want to work, but can't- there's simply not enough jobs. Your knee jerk reaction would penalise the decent majority on the dole. How is that fair or equitable? How could someone leaving college or school in 2008 possibly expect to get 5 years of work in the current economic circumstances? They couldn't is the answer- yet you have no problem screwing them over.

Apart from that though, your desire to reduce crime and penalise people on the dole conflict with one another. How do you expect the tens of thousands who you'd boot off the dole to survive? By eating grass? Their children? To die? People will do desperate things to survive, and if you remove all legitimate income from a person, then he'll have no choice but to turn to crime to survive. Then when caught, they'll have to be incarcerated, which costs the state even more. So, once again, your proposals fall down like a house of cards. Away with the fairies indeed...

Thats what I'd do Mein Freund

Well if we want irrational, contradictory policies introduced, without any thought or analysis of their consequences, we'll know where to turn...

threeball wrote: »

Good post, another area that needs sorting and its not that hard if people ignore the bleeding hearts that hold this country to ransom at every turn and actually run a country the caters firstly for the majority. Only then will the money and will be there to help those who can't help themselves and genuinely need it. Most of the above just want handouts

Why do you assume you're in the majority? If the referendum to abolish capital punishment is anything to go by, us "bleeding hearts" are in the majority in this country.

worded wrote: »

USA : Ireland / Europe - Are the crime rates higher as a ratio of the population though?

The homicide rate in the US was 6.5 per 100k people in 2004. In Western Europe, it was 1.5. So the murder rate in the US, which apparently we should all emulate, is over 4 times that of Western Europe, who are apparently nothing but "bleeding hearts", "do-gooders" etc. Well it seems to me that the hard ass yanks are 4 times more likely to be murdered than us weakling Euro types, so I'm happy to continue with our general policies.

My folks like Spain as there is usually few problems there as the police deal with thugs quickly, sometimes on the spot. Thugs deserve what they get.

Statistically, Spain is slightly more safe than Ireland- going by homicide alone. In the past four years of the last decade for which there are records, Ireland's average rate per 100k is 1.5; Spain's is 1.06. There's a slight difference, but it is very small, and certain not cause for all the hysteria that's evident on boards, and in the tabloid media. Indeed, both Canada and New Zealand have higher murder rates this decade, at 1.62 and 1.76 respectively. Ireland's, in contrast, is 1.25. Somewhat ironic considering Liam Byrne's lauding of the Canadian system as "tough but fair", and the country itself as a better place than Ireland for raising kids. All been equal, those kids are more likely to be murdered in Canada than the Ireland he so despairs for...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

iMax wrote: »

Way too soft. Should be more like American cops ( complete with uniform adjustment) those guys command respect.

Tasering of some petty criminals wouldn't go amiss either. Might curl some petty crime.

lol, funniest thing i have read on boards.ie to date.